Transcript Highlights:

• She took English for Immigrant Entrepreneurs classes that we support, which were actually supported by
• I'm here today to testify in support.
• I work for MD Arms Bereavement Support, which is the only organization in Massachusetts that supports
• Various needs to improve our employable workforce, sustained needs by many employers to have quality
• Thank you for supporting this bill.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development heard testimony on several workforce-related bills, with most of the hearing focused on ESOL and apprenticeship legislation, followed by testimony on a four-day workweek pilot and paid prenatal leave. On ESOL, witnesses including the Boston Foundation, Skillworks, MassINC, MIRA, JVS Boston, Eastern Bank, immigrant advocates, employers, and legislators supported H.2080/S.1326, arguing that Massachusetts has a large backlog of limited-English-proficiency residents waiting for classes, that ESOL is essential to economic mobility and immigrant integration, and that the state needs a coordinated, statewide strategy with more vocational and workplace-focused English instruction. Testifiers cited long waitlists, fragmented delivery across agencies, labor shortages, and examples of workplace English programs helping immigrants gain jobs, advance careers, and support businesses. Committee members asked questions about how vocational ESOL differs from standard classes, and witnesses explained that it focuses on job-specific language and workplace scenarios. The committee also heard strong support for H.2085/S.1303, which would require more use of registered apprentices on public construction projects over $1 million. Labor leaders from the Massachusetts AFL-CIO and Massachusetts Building Trades, along with electricians and apprentices, said the bill would help apprentices complete training by ensuring enough job-site hours, expand access to good union careers, and strengthen the construction workforce for housing, infrastructure, and clean energy work. Several witnesses defended existing apprenticeship ratios and electrical licensing standards, warning against deregulation and emphasizing safety. Committee members asked about project thresholds and apprenticeship ratios, and witnesses said the bill’s phased apprentice-hour requirement was intended to cover most public projects under current cost conditions. The committee then heard testimony on S.1330, a four-day workweek pilot program. Senator Dillon Fernandez and Representative Shirley Arriaga described the proposal as a response to burnout, affordability pressures, and changing workplace norms, arguing that a pilot would let Massachusetts study whether shorter workweeks improve productivity, retention, and worker well-being. Witnesses said the model could help families balance caregiving and commuting while maintaining or improving output. Finally, the committee took testimony on S.1361, establishing paid prenatal leave. Parents, health advocates, March of Dimes, and others said paid leave would help pregnant workers attend critical prenatal appointments, reduce missed care, and improve maternal and infant health outcomes. Several speakers shared personal stories about high-risk pregnancies, pregnancy loss, and the financial strain of taking unpaid time off. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and asked a limited number of questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Beyond that, you'll find employer-supported professional certifications, immigration assistance, and
• Beyond that, you'll find employer-supported professional certifications, immigration assistance, and
• </c> balance of power that employers have. balance of power that employers have.
• </c> Um, someone's looking for employment. Um, someone's looking for employment.
• </c> not support uh this bill. not support uh this bill.

Bills: HF3889 , HF2567 , HF3878

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Keywords: workforce development, grant program, employment, economic development, funding, employment contract, labor policy, employee rights, unconscionable provisions, public policy, legal enforcement, airport workers, wage standards, labor rights, minimum wage, economic equity, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• and signed employment contract?
• outside employer or opposing legislation disfavored by the employer.
• employer.
• There's an employment contract. “Find it on another. There’s an employment contract. Yes.
• I have given him emotional support, financial support, personal advice.

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> forward to support for this bill. forward to support for this bill.
• </c><00:23:07.120><c> Thank</c> support this bill for passage. Thank support this bill for passage.
• </c> support when the time comes. support when the time comes.
• and general employment conditions.
• ><c> all</c><00:53:33.119><c> the</c> employment relationships with all the employment relationships

Bills: HF3707 , HF3732 , HF2581 , HF3731

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Keywords: unemployment insurance, judicial officials, paid leave, economic development, worker protections, workforce development, unemployment benefits, youth training, grants, job creation, grant funding, revolving loan, underserved communities, disadvantaged groups, electrical licensing, installation, Class A installer, regulations, labor and industry, 1183

Summary: The committee first adopted the minutes from February 26 and then heard House File 2581, authored by Representative Frazier, which sought $1 million for Fortis Capital, a nonprofit economic development lender. Frazier and Fortis CEO Brian Smith described Fortis as a gap-financing lender that helps underserved entrepreneurs who cannot meet traditional bank underwriting standards. They said the organization has made 37 loans totaling more than $4 million since 2021, leveraged another $29.5 million, and created 314 jobs. Smith said Fortis typically charges around 6.5% interest, has had two defaults, and uses a revolving loan fund model that recycles repayments; members discussed how the proposal fits with other state economic development programs and whether Fortis should instead be part of a competitive grant process. The chair laid HF 2581 over for possible inclusion in a budget bill. The committee then heard House File 3707, brought by Representative Berg, which would extend confidentiality protections to unemployment insurance and paid leave judges and related staff by adding them to the definition of judges for purposes of protecting personal information. Berg and testifiers from the Department of Economic Development and MAPE said the bill responds to harassment and safety concerns, including threats, doxxing, and an attack near an office, and is intended to protect people making sensitive determinations. MAPE supported the bill as an update to existing protections for similar workers. Members raised concerns that the bill’s language was too broad, especially the reference to the paid leave division, and questioned whether it should cover only judges or also call-center and other staff. Department and committee members agreed the language likely needed narrowing and discussed possible amendments and whether to move the bill to Judiciary and then revisit it. No final vote was taken on HF 3707 during the discussion, and the bill remained under consideration for further language work.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Hawaii Employment Security Law. Hawaii Employment Security Law.
• I support this bill. Injured decades. I support this bill.
• </c><00:20:49.360><c> or</c><00:20:49.520><c> employer</c> dispute for employment or employer dispute
• </c> were two support, two in opposition. were two support, two in opposition.
• </c> Okay, thank you, in support. Okay, thank you, in support.

Committee: Senate Labor and Technology

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2455, HD2, relating to employment practices. Testimony was limited, with support from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women and UPW; the committee noted nine support, zero opposition, and zero comments. No vote was taken on this bill during the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 2165, HD2, relating to the Hawaii Employment Security Law. DLIR supported the measure but requested an amendment moving language in Section 2 from subsection A to subsection C to preserve the legal structure. Members questioned DLIR about a January 8 U.S. Department of Labor letter and whether the bill would keep Hawaii in conformity with federal unemployment insurance requirements. DLIR said the federal guidance requires the state to remove the carve-out for labor-dispute claimants, though unions with hiring halls and members in good standing could still be exempt from work-search requirements under an authorized list. UNITE HERE Local 5 opposed the bill and said the current law already gives the department discretion to exempt striking workers. The committee recessed the bill before any final action was taken in the portion shown. In the joint hearing with Commerce and Consumer Protection, the committees heard House Bill 1509, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation. DLIR supported the bill, DHER offered comments and requested an amendment, UPW supported it, and one Zoom testifier described personal experience with delayed care and urged faster decisions. After testimony, the committees voted to pass the bill with amendments. The adopted amendments restored the 7-day treatment-plan deadline from 10 days, changed the effective date to January 1, 2077, and struck the proposed $500 fine for employers who fail to respond within 10 days. Back in the Labor and Technology agenda, the committee heard House Bill 1515, HD2, also relating to workers’ compensation, with testimony noting seven in support, one in opposition, and one comment, but no action was taken in the excerpt. The committee also heard House Bill 1514, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation vocational rehabilitation plans. A Zoom testifier opposed the bill, arguing the 120-day timeline was unrealistic for complex cases. DLIR said the bill would give the director discretion to extend the vocational rehabilitation plan timeline beyond 120 days with no cap on extensions, and the committee noted five support, four opposition, and zero comments. Finally, the committee began House Bill 2458, HD3, relating to surveillance pricing. OCP said it stood on written testimony, while supporters argued the bill would prevent corporations from using personal data to set prices, especially for groceries. Retail and grocery interests opposed the measure, saying it was too broad and could restrict loyalty programs, promotions, and discounts; one witness asked that a loyalty-program exemption be restored.

Transcript Highlights:

• Employment.
• Accessibility and employment.
• One of our goals as an employment subcommittee is to encourage employers to hire people with disabilities
• . ...employment for youth or CAPE-Youth.
• Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities subcommittee on Disability Employment approved the prior meeting minutes, welcomed new commission member Victoria Gill, and heard an opening quote on leadership before moving to presentations and planning. The main presentation was from Kristen Grip and Katie McCarthy of Boston Children’s Hospital’s Disability Alliance employee-led group, which described its mission to build an inclusive workplace through education, community-building, and advocacy. They discussed monthly disability-awareness programming, intersectional events, accommodation and accessibility efforts, internal ableism, universal design, and BCH’s recognition in the 2025 Disability Equality Index. They also described their own lived experience and emphasized that employees with disabilities should lead disability-related workplace efforts. Committee members asked how to start a disability employee resource group and what external partnerships might help. The presenters said BCH’s HR diversity team helped launch the group over about a year, and members noted related resources, including a Work Without Limits guide and possible connections with Spalding Rehabilitation and other hospitals. The committee also discussed BCH’s continued support for disability inclusion work despite broader political pressure, and members praised the hospital’s efforts and offered to share additional contacts and resources. The subcommittee then turned to possible collaboration with SEED, the State Exchange on Employment and Disability, on Massachusetts as a model employer and benefit cliff analysis work. Members agreed SEED could help with policy framing, comparative data, stakeholder education, and youth disability employment efforts, and they approved inviting SEED to brief the subcommittee in January or February. The group also discussed possible links to CAPE-Youth, Commonwealth HR and DEI offices, and a future partnership with the Office of the Veterans Advocate. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the interns, and supports both the interns and employers throughout the internship experience.
• </c> Professional Services our employer Professional Services our employer partners<00:04:01.040><c>
• </c><00:04:14.760><c> chip</c> opportunity to support chip opportunity to support chip manufacturing<
• with</c> program matches up the employers with program matches up the employers with the<00:05:13.919
• demographics, support skill development and alignment with employer needs, and develop work readiness

Committee: Senate Jobs and Economic Development

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• workers, employers, and insurers.
• And is there any distinction drawn between private employers versus public employers?
• Is there any distinction drawn between private employers versus public employers as far as unemployment
• So I will say the main distinction between private and public employers is private employers basically
• So they're liable employers.

Committee: House Budget

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, like all of the others, this union does include the office support staff.
• So there was a lot of support in the legislature for this legislation.
• define CPCS as a public employer.
• And they are not being adequately supported. They are not being adequately supported.
• With that being true, our only support is ourselves.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 2522 / H. 5909, which would amend state labor law to treat the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) as a public employer and allow its employees to seek collective bargaining rights. The chair explained the Article 48 initiative process, noted that no opponents or members of the public had signed up to testify, and said written testimony would be accepted through March 20. The hearing focused on whether CPCS staff should be brought within the public-sector bargaining framework and how that would interact with the agency’s statutory duties. Expert testimony began with an NCSL analyst, who gave a national overview of public employee bargaining rights and examples of public defender unions in other states and localities, including Colorado, New York City, Indianapolis, Cook County, Maryland, and Illinois. Department of Labor Relations officials then reviewed prior failed organizing efforts at CPCS and its predecessor, explaining that earlier petitions were dismissed because the agency was not considered a public employer under existing law. They said passage of the initiative would not automatically unionize employees, but would allow a union to petition for an election or written majority authorization, with normal unit-appropriateness and supervisory/confidential employee issues still to be resolved. CPCS Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti testified that the agency supports providing information to the legislature but is not taking a position for or against unionization. He described CPCS’s statutory responsibilities, size, and current efforts to expand staffing after recent indigent-defense crises, and said any new bargaining framework would need to operate alongside the agency’s obligations to provide counsel. Proponents from SEIU Local 888 and allied labor groups argued that CPCS employees have long been denied the same collective bargaining rights as other public workers, and that a union would provide just-cause protections, a voice on staffing and working conditions, and better support for recruitment and retention. CPCS attorneys and staff testified in favor of the measure, citing heavy caseloads, rapid expansion, inadequate supervision and office support, and the need for representation in disciplinary and workplace disputes. Committee members asked about bargaining-unit composition, the role of the DLR, the effect of unionization on attorneys’ ethical duties, and the use and cost of paid signature gathering. The hearing ended with no votes taken and no opposition testimony presented.

Transcript Highlights:

• We see that employer insurance, consumers, that price going up, it's a cost driver with all of our employers
• And I heard your support for HB 139.
• , especially small employers.
• And these employers are being forced to pay them. And these employers are being forced to pay them.
• to support the committee's work.

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , for medical support, and if the employers, which is going to be a major part of this, really minimum
• and</c><00:02:33.519><c> if</c><00:02:33.640><c> the</c> support for medical support and if the support
• for medical support and if the employers<00:02:34.760><c> which</c><00:02:34.879><c> is</c><00:02:35.040
• who oppose it, because we also heard from employers who support it, weren't included.
• c><00:41:41.880><c> support</c> we also heard from employers who support we also heard from employers

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So under circumstances here, where there is no obligation for ...these employers—not employers, because
• employers, or employers, contract employers, employees, contract employees.
• You're not tied to that employer in any other way, and the employer likes it that way because they can
• So it's a benefit to the employer for the employees. Benefits. So it's a benefit to the employer.
• They can run their own business and work for this employer and that employer.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Human Resources

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 513 gives me hope to achieve this support.
• we come together again today to support 9/16.
• There's an interesting trend happening with employers.
• Would it impact the employer? Absolutely.
• It will save the employer money in providing health.

Bills: SB 502 , SB 513 , SB 622 , SB 670 , SB 731 , SB 732 , SB 916 , SB 961 , SB 1122

Committee: Senate Health & Human Services

Keywords: SB 502, Texas peace officers, Health and Human Services Commission, HHSC Office of Inspector General, OIG investigators, law enforcement classification, Schedule C, state employee benefits, injury benefits, peace officer status, commissioned officers, state auditor classification, Government Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, human services, health and human services, law enforcement compensation, public employee benefits, Texas state law enforcement, child welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• It supports the development of partnerships between schools and employers to provide students 16 and
• This is a program that we partner with the Office of Higher Education on, and this supports employers
• This is a program that we partner with the Office of Higher Education on, and this supports employers
• This is a program that we partner with the Office of Higher Education on, and this supports employers
• It supports the development of partnerships between schools and employers to provide students 16 and

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• registered a support position with the committee.
• We are in strong support. Thank you. Good morning.
• SB 1024, the motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Labor, Employment and Employment, with
• Are there any more witnesses in support?
• For example, SB 848 required all potential employers to inquire with previous employers regarding potential

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement heard several bills, beginning with SB 1166 by Senator Arreguín, which would allow AC Transit and its employees to use the Public Employment Relations Board to resolve unfair labor practice charges instead of the courts. The author and union supporters said PERB would provide a faster, fairer, and more specialized process, while no opposition testified. The committee members expressed support, and SB 1166 was approved on a due pass motion and re-referred to Appropriations. The committee also took up consent items SB 1024, SB 1207, and SB 1444, which were moved on consent and placed on hold for absent members. Later, SB 1083 by Senator Perez was heard; it would refine last year’s school misconduct database law by adding an administrative law judge review process for classified employees, requiring stronger employer notification and record-sharing procedures, and extending vetting requirements to certain contracted workers. Supporters, including classified employees and labor groups, argued the bill adds due process and fairness while preserving student safety. Opponents, including school administrators, school districts, and liability organizations, argued it could create gaps in misconduct records, increase liability, and weaken protections for students. After discussion, the author said he was continuing to work with opponents on amendments and emphasized the bill’s goal of balancing due process with child safety, referencing his own experience with grooming as a student. SB 1083 was passed on a due pass motion and re-referred to the Committee on Education. The chair then announced that all bills had passed and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> in employment in employment understand<00:04:13.160><c> what</c><00:04:13.360><c> the</c><00:04:
• </c> process that's required for employment. process that's required for employment.
• It sounded like you said uh with respect to employment you said uh with respect to employment that we're
• It sounded like you said uh with respect to employment you said uh with respect to employment that we're
• </c> you said uh with respect to employment you said uh with respect to employment that<00:15:12.600>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 530 ultimately allows employers to evade their employment tax obligations even when the test
• Section 530 ultimately allows employers to evade their employment tax obligations even when the test
• to evade their allows employers to evade their employment<00:07:51.319><c> tax</c><00:07:52.240><c>
• I ask your support.
• I ask your support.

Committee: Senate Taxes

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These are completely employer-driven.
• These are completely employer driven. These are identity. These are completely employer-driven.
• We had more than 500 employers in the region be part of it.
• We have special employer events on campus.
• And they have to review the wage and employment information.

Committee: Senate Education Postsecondary

Summary: The Committee on Education Postsecondary held an informational hearing focused on how Florida’s public colleges and universities are aligning bachelor’s degree programs with workforce needs and improving student outcomes. Chancellor Kathy Hebda described Florida College System enrollment growth, the state college system’s workforce-oriented bachelor’s degrees, approval and accountability processes for those programs, and outcomes data showing strong completion and wage results, especially in health care. Emily Sykes of the Board of Governors outlined the State University System’s program review practices, performance-based funding metrics, strategic emphasis programs, and the MyFloridaFuture tool that lets students compare earnings, debt, and employment outcomes by major and institution. University and college leaders then described campus-level workforce initiatives. Florida Gulf Coast University highlighted employer-driven microcredentials, digital badges, internships, career fairs, service learning, and partnerships with regional employers. UCF discussed its career navigator requirements, major industry partnerships such as Lockheed Martin, nursing and faculty career-integration efforts, and a centralized career development center. Northwest Florida State College and the University of West Florida emphasized their bachelor’s programs, transfer pathways, teacher and nursing outcomes, military and defense-related workforce pipelines, cybersecurity training, and stackable credentials tied to regional labor needs. During member questions, senators asked how microcredentials and military experience translate into college credit, whether credentials transfer across institutions, and what legislators can do to help. Witnesses said the state’s common course and articulation systems already support transfer, and they encouraged continued legislative support for innovation, faster curriculum alignment, internships, and specialized transfer degrees. No bills were voted on, and the meeting ended with no public comment and an adjournment motion adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason that we exist is to support program.
• Was that support to be able to help students with being able to move to employment every year we recognize
• an employer as an employer of the year or employing complete years of our program.
• But we do is provide in-class support and full academic.
• But I hope they, you know, that you do have a state that supports you and supports children and families

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and then the last piece is around expanding job support services to individuals and... support services
• We can develop resources for employers to better... resources for employers to better understand the
• Any other thoughts on workforce employment? I know from Ingram or the... employment?
• focusing on understanding child support. around understanding child support obligations and amending
• child support orders.

Keywords: 924, joint, all